Topic: Is Winona Ryder part of Castlevania canon?

[Super Waffle]

According to Castlevania lore from the PS2-era games, Dracula start out as a dude named Matthias and turned into a vampire out of vengeance for his dead wife Elisabetha. And in the 1992 Dracula movie, Dracula turned himself into a vampire to avenge his dead wife Elisabeta. So I'm pretty sure that's where Konami stole the character from.

Does that mean Keanu Reeves is part of Castlevania canon too?

[chainsawmidget]

Is Winona Ryder part of Castlevania canon?

Yes.  In fact,more games need Winona Ryder. 

Does that mean Keanu Reeves is part of Castlevania canon too?

No.  Just Winona. 

[AlexCalvo]

I strongly believe that Bloodlines' connection to the Dravula novel was direct response to the Bram Stoker's Dracula movie and its success.  So... in a way?

[Guy Belmont]

Well id have to say yes as its is  based off  his history, and the other legends that came about.

Unlike the film he married twice. first one died during the war in 1462   Legend states she threw herself off the tower into the Argeş River.  and so he got married again.

But seeing as Elisabeta and Elisabetha  are  very similar so i think that IGA liked the idea. and the film is sort of part of the whole legend of Dracula now.

I must say i love the idea of  Winona Ryder being part if the canon.

[zangetsu468]

I don't think so.
The book is what Bloodlines is paying tribute to, not the movie. The book is actually a bit different and ends differently.

Although I do see Mina from AOS/ DOS is a clear reference to Mina Harker.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I don't think so.
The book is what Bloodlines is paying tribute to, not the movie. The book is actually a bit different and ends differently.

Although I do see Mina from AOS/ DOS is a clear reference to Mina Harker.

Because Mina Hakuba sounds absolutely different from Mina Harker in a thick Japanese accent. No possible connection there at all mate. Why would you possibly believe something so readily debunk-- oh wait.

[zangetsu468]

Because Mina Hakuba sounds absolutely different from Mina Harker in a thick Japanese accent. No possible connection there at all mate. Why would you possibly believe something so readily debunk-- oh wait.

I don't understand what the implication is here, because I thought my post was clear.
The events of the movie are not exactly the same as the events of the novel.

- Are Mina Harker/ Hakuba connected by one referencing the other's name? Yes
- Does the "Elisabetha was reincarnated into Mina Harker" twist from the film have its place in CV? No, the events of the book and film aren't exclusive.*
*One of the reasons I state that the film is not canon is due to the way Vlad Tepes is presented. His wife Elisabetha is obviously not the same woman from LOI. The film's backstory also obviously differs from the CV universe being that this particular backstory given its context should actually be referencing Lisa in the CV universe, not Elisabetha. In addition, the start of the film shows Vlad stabbing the cross which starts to bleed, and offers an explanation about how he became "unholy" or anti-Christ so to speak, which directly conflicts with LOI's backstory. However, none of this is mentioned in the original novel, which doesn't conflict with the Castlevania's canon either).
- The book is explicit about Quincy's death and how/ why he died killing Dracula. While I don't recall the ending to the film my memory tells me it was different to the novel.

I know your stance on this BA, I don't believe Elisabetha (from LOI) was reincarnated into Mina Harker or subsequently into Mina Hakuba.

[Lumi Kløvstad]

I don't understand what the implication is here, because I thought my post was clear.
The events of the movie are not exactly the same as the events of the novel.

- Are Mina Harker/ Hakuba connected by one referencing the other's name? Yes
- Does the "Elisabetha was reincarnated into Mina Harker" twist from the film have its place in CV? No, the events of the book and film aren't exclusive.*
*One of the reasons I state that the film is not canon is due to the way Vlad Tepes is presented. His wife Elisabetha is obviously not the same woman from LOI. The film's backstory also obviously differs from the CV universe being that this particular backstory given its context should actually be referencing Lisa in the CV universe, not Elisabetha. In addition, the start of the film shows Vlad stabbing the cross which starts to bleed, and offers an explanation about how he became "unholy" or anti-Christ so to speak, which directly conflicts with LOI's backstory. However, none of this is mentioned in the original novel, which doesn't conflict with the Castlevania's canon either).
- The book is explicit about Quincy's death and how/ why he died killing Dracula. While I don't recall the ending to the film my memory tells me it was different to the novel.

I know your stance on this BA, I don't believe Elisabetha (from LOI) was reincarnated into Mina Harker or subsequently into Mina Hakuba.

Actually on this my stance is that I think Mina Hakuba is Mina Hakuba and trying to rejigger canon such that she's somehow Elisabetha or Lisa's or Mina Harker's reincarnation is frankly a load of overly contrived horse manure. The only one explicitly stated to be a reincarnation is Soma, and I think that is the decision that best suits the story and the themes it wishes to present. Not to mention that by keeping Mina unconnected to a prior love interest essentially allows Dracula to be saved by "moving on"  in a manner -- which is why the reincarnation happened at all.

There's no possible way her name isn't a reference though, which was the point of my earlier sarcasm.

[Edit]
Also: why would anyone think Dracula was ever in love with Mina Harker? Seriously, in the book they are literally nothing but bitter to-the-death enemies that Dracula only starts preying on because he realizes the heroes would fall into disarray without her to lead and galvanize them. The book has exactly minus eight billion percent romantic subtext between them. It was a completely stupid and unnecessary addition by Coppola and honestly the film's weakest aspect.

Which is really saying something about a movie that cast Keanu Reeves in a gray wig, now that I think about it. :S

[Dracula9]

No.  Just Winona.

[zangetsu468]

@BloodyArperture Fair enough. I'm not disagreeing and I also believe the film was overly altered in certain parts which they didn't need to be. In fact I'm not really sure why this was done, other than thinking it may appeal more to the fairer sex and potentially engage a wider target audience.. Guess that's one for the ages.

[Dracula9]

Actually on this my stance is that I think Mina Hakuba is Mina Hakuba and trying to rejigger canon such that she's somehow Elisabetha or Lisa's or Mina Harker's reincarnation is frankly a load of overly contrived horse manure. The only one explicitly stated to be a reincarnation is Soma, and I think that is the decision that best suits the story and the themes it wishes to present. Not to mention that by keeping Mina unconnected to a prior love interest essentially allows Dracula to be saved by "moving on"  in a manner -- which is why the reincarnation happened at all.

There's no possible way her name isn't a reference though, which was the point of my earlier sarcasm.

[Edit]
Also: why would anyone think Dracula was ever in love with Mina Harker? Seriously, in the book they are literally nothing but bitter to-the-death enemies that Dracula only starts preying on because he realizes the heroes would fall into disarray without her to lead and galvanize them. The book has exactly minus eight billion percent romantic subtext between them. It was a completely stupid and unnecessary addition by Coppola and honestly the film's weakest aspect.

Which is really saying something about a movie that cast Keanu Reeves in a gray wig, now that I think about it. :S

I think AoS Mina is indeed nothing more than a reference in name alone. Maybe a bit of a not-so-subtle "history repeats itself" thing with New Dracula having a New Mina or something.

I think Coppola threw it in to give Big D a more tragic backstory--sure, it could've done just fine with the Elisabetha suicide backstory, but the "Mina looks like her/is her reincarnation" aspect hammers the point (stake?) home even more (not to say it's necessary to do so, mind). Factor that in with the whole "redeemed by death at the hand of his lover whose death caused all of this" ending and I think we have a plausible enough reason why that whole bit of nonsense is present.

Also, it's the grey wig you're concerned about?

IT IS HIM

HE IS YOUNG AGAIN

GUAHHHHHH

[X]

- The book is explicit about Quincy's death and how/ why he died killing Dracula. While I don't recall the ending to the film my memory tells me it was different to the novel.

In the movie Quincy was climbing up to the box that held Dracula when one of the Count's Gypsies came up behind him and stabbed him in the back. After a scuffle with said gypsy and Dracula busting out of his box, Quincy charged Dracula--shoving his bowie knife right into his heart. Then Dracula backhands Quincy onto the ground, and later Quincy dies from his stab wound while Dr. Steward is beside him. In terms of the Castlevania connection, Quincy is (from what I remember) the only member of the Belmont clan to die whilst battling Dracula.

[DraculaCronqvist]

While I really, really like the movie, I always thought it had nothing to do with the Castlevania game series. It just borrowed elements from the movie, but that's all, really. After all, plot devices such as Dracula wanting Mina because he loves her would not fit into Castlevania anymore.

[zangetsu468]

In the movie Quincy was climbing up to the box that held Dracula when one of the Count's Gypsies came up behind him and stabbed him in the back. After a scuffle with said gypsy and Dracula busting out of his box, Quincy charged Dracula--shoving his bowie knife right into his heart. Then Dracula backhands Quincy onto the ground, and later Quincy dies from his stab wound while Dr. Steward is beside him. In terms of the Castlevania connection, Quincy is (from what I remember) the only member of the Belmont clan to die whilst battling Dracula.

I think a part of this scene was dramatised for the movie. In my mind, Dracula never "busted out" of his box in the novel. Quincy simply stabbed him with a bowie knife, but died because of the injuries caused by the gypsies who were carting Dracula's coffin.

[AlexCalvo]

I think this movie had a lot more of an impact on the series than some people here would like to admit.  I mean the whole Dracula/ reincarnation element of the series was almost definitely a reaction to this movie.  And while I don't necessarily think Mina Hakuba is a reincarnation of Elizabetha/Lisa/Mina Harker, or any combination there in.  I do think it is something that is intentionally supposed to cross our mind.  And like I said earlier, this movie was likely at least 90% the reason they went and connected the novel so heavily into the continuity.